Sorry too long, hard to read. Maybe should get it summarized by chatgpt

Expand full comment

Hey Marco,

Nice framework and I mostly agree with it regarding levels 2 and 3. However, I'm not sure about your conclusion about level 1 where you say:

>>Level I applications are useful but will disappear shortly

Because as you said yourself:

>>People will earlier or later adopt GPT technologies to solve problems on Productivity Hill and get significant value out of it. This will also significantly raise the bar for anyone offering these services professionally today.

To use a military analogy, you don't go into a fight without guns and bullets just because the adversary wears bulletproof vests, you just try to use better performing guns and bullets (machine guns + hollow bullets for example), it's basically an arms race and the real winners are those who sell the artillery and the ammunition rather than the users themselves for whom it's a zero-sum game. So from this standpoint, it's arguably a good business.

Now, the question is, is it defensible or will there be a thousand, or shall I say a million, copycats?

So my conclusion would be that level 1 applications would also be useful, however, they might drown, not because of the opposing side, but in the noise of all their similar competitors.

Expand full comment

This is a useful and well-articulated framing of the challenge of creating a successful business in this new world. It makes me think of Sam Altman's comment that the costs of intelligence and energy will fall to near zero in the relative near term. Real world (physical) applications seem like the primary field of opportunities that might be moatable. Or perhaps we should let go of such long term thinking.

Expand full comment